BackgroundBronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory condition that impacts significantly on individuals and healthcare services. Self-management is recommended in clinical guidelines for bronchiectasis as an intervention to enable patients to manage their condition, yet there is little evidence to support it.MethodsThree face to face focus groups (17 adults with bronchiectasis) were conducted at three National Health Service (NHS) sites in North West England. Additionally, semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken with 11 healthcare professionals (HCPs), including doctors, nurses and physiotherapists. Thematic analysis identified common themes and occurrences verified by independent audit.FindingsFour common overarching themes were identified: the meaning of self-management; benefits; barriers and influencers to self-management; subthemes varied. Both groups recognised component interventions. Patients highlighted that self-management enabled them to learn what works and moderate behaviour. Aspects of delivery and structure were important to HCPs but a ‘make do’ culture was evident. Benefits for both groups included empowering patients. Common barriers for patients were time, mood and lack of access to support which could mitigate engagement with self-management. HCPs identified barriers including patient characteristics and lack of resources. Influencers for patients were peer, carer and psychosocial support, for HCPs influencers were individual patient attributes, including ability and motivation, and HCP characteristics such as knowledge and understanding about bronchiectasis.SummaryThis is the first study to explore patients’ and HCPs’ views of self-management for bronchiectasis. The need for an individual, flexible and responsive self-management programme specific to bronchiectasis was evident. Personal characteristics of patients and HCPs could affect the uptake and engagement with self-management and HCPs knowledge of the disease is a recognised precursor to effective self-management. The study identified key aspects for consideration during development, delivery and sustainability of self-management programmes and findings suggest that patients’ psychosocial and socioeconomic circumstances may affect adoption and activation of self-management behaviours.
BackgroundThe use of physical restraint on vulnerable people with learning disabilities and mental health problems is one of the most controversial and criticised forms of restrictive practise. This paper reports on the implementation of an organisational approach called “No Force First” within a large mental health organisation in England, UK. The aim was to investigate changes in violence/aggression, harm, and physical restraint following implementation.MethodsThe study used a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design. Recorded incidents of violence/aggression from 44 inpatient mental health and learning disabilities (including forensic) wards were included (n = 13,599). Two study groups were created for comparison: the “intervention” group comprising all incidents on these wards during the 24 months post-implementation (2018–2019) (n = 6,551) and the “control” group comprising all incidents in the 24 months preceding implementation (2015–2016) (n = 7,048). Incidents recorded during implementation (i.e., 2017) were excluded (n = 3,705). Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Multivariate regression models using generalised estimating equations were performed to estimate unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) of physical restraint and harm, using type of wards, incident, and violence/aggression as key covariates.ResultsA significant 17% reduction in incidence of physical restraint was observed [IRR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.77–0.88, p < 0.0001]. Significant reductions in rates of harm sustained and aggression/violence were also observed, but not concerning the use of medication during restraint. The prevalence of physical restraint was significantly higher in inpatients on forensic learning disability wards than those on forensic mental health wards both pre- (aPR = 4.26, 95% CI 2.91–6.23) and post-intervention (aPR = 9.09, 95% CI 5.09–16.23), when controlling for type of incident and type of violence/aggression. Physical assault was a significantly more prevalent risk factor of restraint use than other forms of violence/aggression, especially that directed to staff (not to other patients).ConclusionsThis is a key study reporting the positive impact that organisational models and guides such as “No Force First” can have on equipping staff to focus more on primary and secondary prevention as opposed to tertiary coercive practises such as restraint in mental health and learning disabilities settings.
Background The CLUSTER model of searching was proposed as a systematic method of searching for studies for reviews of complex interventions. Aim The method has not been evaluated before. This methodological review identified and evaluated a sample of evidence syntheses that have used CLUSTER. Methods A forward citation search on the seed CLUSTER publication was conducted on Web of Science Core Collection using six journal citation indexes and Google Scholar in December 2020. Reviews which used the CLUSTER method were eligible for inclusion. A narrative synthesis was used to describe the types of evidence syntheses that used CLUSTER searching, the extent to which the CLUSTER approach has been operationalised within evidence syntheses and whether the value, benefits and limitations of CLUSTER were assessed by the reviewers. Findings A total of 16 reviews were identified and eligible for synthesis. Six different review types that used CLUSTER were identified with realist reviews being the most prominent. The evaluation of complex interventions was the most common review topic area. The use of CLUSTER varied among reviews with the retrieval of sibling studies being the most common reason. ‘Citations’ and ‘Lead authors’ were the most followed elements of CLUSTER. Conclusions Evidence suggests that CLUSTER has been adopted for use in reviews of complex interventions. Its usage varied among the included reviews. It is imperative that future reviewers diligently report the elements and steps of CLUSTER that were utilised in order to provide a reproducible and transparent search strategy that can be reported with similar transparency to bibliographic database searches.
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of intermittent prophylactic antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.